Design paper · Non-lawyer edition
Design paper — the reasoning behind every clause of the LWD Constitution

Constitutional Design Paper

A plain-English, audit-grade explanation of the twelve design decisions that shape the Life Without Debt Ltd Constitution — every option we considered, every pitfall we identified, every mitigation we built in, and the full text of every law and regulator instrument that governs the choice. Written so a non-lawyer director can read the Constitution with complete visibility into the legal reasoning applied.

DESIGN PAPER v1.0 · Not legal advice · For Board review + solicitor sign-off before filing
Why this paper exists

The Constitution of a Company Limited by Guarantee that also seeks ACNC charity registration, PBI subtype endorsement and DGR Item 4.1.1 endorsement is not a "form-filling" document. Every clause is either compelled by statute, compelled by a regulator's guidance, or chosen to close a specific risk that would otherwise defeat one or more of those endorsements. A director who cannot articulate why a clause is there cannot lawfully approve it, and cannot lawfully hold it out to the ACNC or ATO as a considered constitutional choice. This paper gives every director the language and the evidence to do exactly that.

It is written for a reader with no legal training. Where a technical term is unavoidable, it is defined at first use and repeated in the glossary. Where a statute is relied upon, the section is quoted in full, translated into plain English, and then re-applied to LWD's specific facts.

Part IHow to read this paper

The four parts

The structure of each decision

Each of the twelve decisions in Part II follows the same six-block pattern, so the reader learns the shape once and can then scan the rest efficiently:

  1. The question — what constitutional choice does the law force us to make?
  2. The options — every credible answer, laid out side by side, with the chosen option marked in forest green and the rejected options marked in burgundy. Neutral options (viable but not chosen) are shown in plain grey.
  3. The pitfalls — the specific ways each option can break the charity, the DGR endorsement, the PBI test, or the directors' personal position under the Corporations Act.
  4. The mitigations — how the chosen wording of the Constitution closes each pitfall.
  5. The chosen path — a one-paragraph summary of what the Constitution actually says, referring to the specific clause number.
  6. The legal anchors — a cross-reference to the entries in Part III where the underlying law is quoted in full.

The colour code

Forest green
Chosen option, chosen path, adopted clause.
Burgundy
Rejected option — with a reason recorded.
Amber
Pitfall or risk — followed by the mitigation we adopted.
Slate
Neutral option — credible but not chosen.

The two lenses used throughout

Every decision is evaluated against two lenses simultaneously:

Legal survivability

Does the clause satisfy every mandatory rule imposed by the Corporations Act, the ACNC Act, the Charities Act, the Income Tax Assessment Act, and the ATO's PBI interpretation statement? A clause that fails any of these cannot appear in the Constitution at all.

Mission fitness

Does the clause let LWD actually do what it exists to do — negotiate down, pay off, or otherwise relieve the debts of terminally ill Australians — without any of the operational choices later triggering an unintended regulatory tripwire? A clause that is legal but operationally paralysing is a failed clause.

A candid note on the limits of this paper

This paper synthesises the legislation, regulator guidance and leading cases that we have found relevant to a debt-relief PBI for terminally ill Australians. It is thorough, but it is not, and cannot be, a substitute for review by an Australian solicitor who specialises in charity law and who accepts professional responsibility for the specific text of the Constitution before it is filed with ASIC and the ACNC. The purpose of this paper is to make that solicitor's job much shorter — because every choice they need to interrogate is already documented, reasoned, and evidenced.

§Glossary of terms used in this paper

Term
What it means in this paper
ACNC
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission — the federal regulator that grants and supervises charity registration under the ACNC Act 2012.
ACL
Australian Credit Licence — the licence issued by ASIC under the NCCP Act 2009 that a person needs to "engage in credit activities" (including debt-collection or debt-management activity for a fee).
ASIC
Australian Securities and Investments Commission — the corporate regulator that supervises companies under the Corporations Act 2001 and credit licensees under the NCCP Act.
Beneficiary
In this paper, a natural person who meets LWD's "terminally ill Australian with debt distress" eligibility criteria and receives services or direct relief. Not to be confused with the private-trust use of the word.
Cairnmillar test
Shorthand for the "distress beyond ordinary suffering" limb of the PBI definition, from Cairnmillar Institute v FCT — the leading case cited by the ATO for who counts as a beneficiary of a public benevolent institution.
CLG
Company Limited by Guarantee — the not-for-profit corporate form under Part 2A.1 of the Corporations Act. Members guarantee a nominal amount (LWD: $10) instead of holding shares.
Constitution
The single governing document of the company, replacing the older Memorandum + Articles. Under s.140 Corporations Act it is a statutory contract between the company, each director and each member.
DGR
Deductible Gift Recipient — an ATO endorsement under Division 30 ITAA 1997 that lets donors claim a tax deduction. LWD seeks DGR under Item 4.1.1 (PBI subtype).
Gift Fund
The ring-fenced fund inside a DGR entity into which deductible gifts must be paid and from which they may only be used for the entity's DGR purpose (ITAA 1997 s.30-130).
Governance Standards
The six standards (GS1–GS6) in Part 3-1 of the ACNC Regulation 2013 that every registered charity (other than a Basic Religious Charity) must meet.
NFP clause
The "not-for-profit" or "no distribution of profits or assets to members" clause — mandatory for registration as a charity, for PBI status and for DGR endorsement.
Paramount clause
A clause the Constitution declares cannot be overridden or narrowed by any other clause. LWD uses paramount clauses for purposes, NFP, gift fund, winding-up and alteration lock.
PBI
Public Benevolent Institution — the charity subtype in s.25-5 ACNC Act and Item 4.1.1 ITAA 1997. Governed by the ATO's Commissioner's Interpretation Statement (CIS) issued 29 September 2025.
Related party
Defined in Chapter 2E of the Corporations Act and in AASB 124. In LWD's context it captures the director group (Laurence, Lisa), their spouses, and controlled entities (CoSai CFO Services).
Special resolution
A resolution passed by at least 75% of the votes cast by members entitled to vote (s.9 Corporations Act). Required by statute for constitutional alteration, name change and voluntary winding-up.
Terminal illness
Defined in this paper by cross-reference to Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 reg 6.01A (24-month prognosis, two medical practitioners including a specialist) — see Part III of the Legal Research Memo.
Companion documents

This paper does not duplicate the underlying facts-and-law research already completed. Read alongside:

A note on clause numbering

This paper refers to Constitution clauses using a compact numbering set (cl. 1, cl. 4, cl. 9, cl. 20, cl. 33, cl. 34 etc.) that groups related content together for expository clarity. The existing Constitution v1 draft — the actual filing document — uses a longer 35-clause numbering that separates some concepts (e.g. the Gift Fund content is currently embedded within cll. 7 and 33 of the draft rather than in a standalone cl. 20). Every hyperlink from this paper to the Constitution has been aliased so the link lands on the correct existing clause.

What this means for the solicitor review: where this paper describes a design (e.g. "a dedicated Gift Fund clause block at cl. 20"), the concept is already implemented in the draft Constitution but may be structurally split or combined differently. The solicitor is invited to consider whether structural refactoring (e.g. lifting the Gift Fund content into its own clause block) would improve legibility for the ATO Endorsement reviewer. The substance of every design decision in this paper is already carried by the draft Constitution.

Part IIThe Twelve Decisions

Each decision below follows the same six-block pattern set out in Part I. The clause numbers refer to the Constitution as it will read after this paper is adopted; the letter after the section symbol (e.g. §III.A) refers to the corresponding entry in Part III where the underlying law is quoted in full.

Decision 1

What legal form should LWD take?

Should Life Without Debt be a Company Limited by Guarantee, an Incorporated Association, or a Charitable Trust?

Chosen

A. Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG)

A national, ASIC-regulated non-share company under Part 2A.1 of the Corporations Act 2001. Members guarantee a small amount (proposed: $10) on winding up. Governed by directors, disclosed on the ASIC register, ACNC-registrable, DGR-endorsable.

Why chosen: nationally recognised, credible for large donors and government funders, familiar to solicitors and auditors, and the form specifically contemplated by the ACNC and ATO's PBI guidance materials.

Rejected

B. Incorporated Association (state)

An association incorporated under a State/Territory Associations Incorporation Act (e.g. NSW, VIC). Cheaper and administratively lighter, but state-bounded.

Rejected because: LWD's beneficiaries and donors will be national from day one; a state-based form forces a later re-registration and re-naming; and several major donor/procurement processes require ACN status.

Rejected

C. Charitable Trust

A trust deed with a corporate trustee and beneficiaries defined by class. Popular for grant-making foundations.

Rejected because: LWD is an operating charity (services + direct relief), not a pure grant-maker. A trust structure complicates board-of-directors governance, ACL applicability, and PBI "institution" evidence, and is administratively heavier than a CLG for an operating entity.

Pitfall 1.1 — "Pty Ltd" trap

Registering a proprietary company (Pty Ltd) is common instinct but immediately disqualifies the entity from PBI/DGR because a Pty Ltd distributes surplus to shareholders and cannot satisfy the NFP requirement.

Mitigation: Constitution clause 1 (Name & Type) locks the entity as a public company limited by guarantee, and paramount NFP clause 3 makes distributions to members structurally impossible.
Pitfall 1.2 — Choosing a form ASIC/ACNC do not accept for PBI

The ATO PBI Commissioner's Interpretation Statement (29 Sep 2025) requires an institution — a body with structure, permanence and a substantive activity — not merely a fund or a bare trust.

Mitigation: a CLG with a governed board, members, and an operating team supplies the "institution" limb by design. See CIS analysis in Public Benefit Memo.
Chosen path

LWD is incorporated as a public Company Limited by Guarantee under Part 2A.1 of the Corporations Act 2001, with the words "Limited" or "Ltd" appearing in the name. See Constitution cl. 1.

Constitution cl. 1 · Legal anchors: §III.C1 Corporations Act s.112, s.117, s.150 · §III.B1 ACNC Act s.25-5
Decision 2

What operating model should LWD run?

Should LWD (A) directly negotiate debts on behalf of beneficiaries, (B) act only as a funder that pays beneficiaries' bills, or (C) operate a hybrid — case management + direct payments to creditors + engaging licensed professionals for negotiation?

Rejected

A. In-house debt negotiation

LWD staff would negotiate hardship variations, settlements and payment plans directly with creditors on behalf of beneficiaries.

Rejected because: under the NCCP Act 2009 s.29 read with the definition of "credit activity" in s.6, negotiating credit contracts for a fee (or where fees would ordinarily be charged) requires an ACL and enrolment in AFCA. The costs, delay and RG 205 compliance burden overwhelm the intended benefit in Year 1 and materially weaken the PBI "predominant activity" argument (see §III.G).

Rejected

B. Funder-only

LWD would only pay grants directly to creditors or beneficiaries — no case management, no negotiation, no professional engagement.

Rejected because: a bare payer looks like a "fund", not an "institution", and struggles to demonstrate the substantive-activity limb of the PBI test set out in the ATO CIS paras 44–46 (see §III.E). It also loses the systemic negotiation benefit that materially reduces creditor demand and therefore materially increases the money reaching each beneficiary.

Chosen

C. Hybrid model

LWD provides case management + direct relief payments to creditors + engages licensed third-party financial counsellors and (where necessary) legal representatives to negotiate on beneficiaries' behalf. LWD itself does not conduct the negotiation for a fee.

Why chosen: (i) no ACL required in Year 1 (§III.F); (ii) strong "institution" evidence (case managers, referral network, direct payments, outcomes reporting); (iii) beneficiaries receive both cash relief and professional negotiation on their behalf — the compounded benefit is materially greater than either A or B alone; (iv) sequenced pathway to an ACL in Year 2 if scale justifies it.

Pitfall 2.1 — Operating without an ACL when one is required

ASIC has repeatedly enforced against "debt management" and "credit repair" operators who negotiated debts without a licence — ASIC v Accounts Control Management Services (No 2) [2012] FCA 1290 imposed civil penalties for unlicensed credit activity and unconscionable conduct.

Mitigation: the Constitution's Objects (cl. 4) authorise LWD to engage licensed third parties to conduct negotiation and expressly limit LWD's own activity to case management, referral, direct relief and advocacy — not negotiation for a fee. The Direct Relief Policy operationalises this line.
Pitfall 2.2 — Insufficient "institution" evidence

An entity that only writes cheques does not meet the ATO PBI CIS paras 44–46 requirement for substantive activity and organisational structure. Global Citizen Ltd was denied PBI on this basis in 2021.

Mitigation: Constitution cl. 4(b) enumerates four categories of activity (case management, professional debt-negotiation engagement, direct debt payment within caps, systemic advocacy) and cl. 16 mandates outcome reporting to the Board — supplying documentary evidence of "institution".
Pitfall 2.3 — Debt-collection sector reputational drag

Beneficiaries and the media do not distinguish between "we help debtors" and "we chase debtors". A drafting mistake in the Objects could pull LWD into a public-perception category it does not belong in.

Mitigation: Constitution cl. 4(c) contains an express prohibition: LWD must not act as a debt collector, must not purchase debt portfolios, must not solicit beneficiaries via cold outreach — the anti-drift language recommended by ASIC RG 96.
Chosen path

LWD operates under the Hybrid Model (Option C): case management + engaging licensed professionals for negotiation + bounded direct payments to creditors + systemic advocacy. See Constitution cl. 4.

Constitution cl. 4 · Legal anchors: §III.F NCCP s.29, s.6 · §III.E ATO PBI CIS ¶¶44–46, 100–108 · §III.G ASIC RG 205
Decision 3

How should the Objects define the beneficiary class and the four relief categories?

How wide should the beneficiary class be, and how tightly must the Objects clause enumerate the categories of relief LWD provides?

Rejected

A. Narrow (SIS Reg 6.01A only)

Restrict beneficiaries to persons whose terminal illness is certified in the same terms as Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations reg 6.01A (24-month prognosis, two medical practitioners including a specialist).

Rejected because: (i) it excludes people at Life-Expectancy 12 months who qualify under insurance policies; (ii) it excludes advanced-illness palliative patients whose exact prognosis has not been certified in that form; (iii) it externalises LWD's own eligibility judgment to a superannuation regulation designed for a different purpose. See Legal Research §1.

Chosen

B. Layered class (SIS + insurance + palliative)

Beneficiary class is defined as a person who is an Australian resident and is either (i) certified as satisfying SIS Reg 6.01A, or (ii) certified under a life-insurance policy terminal-illness clause (12- or 24-month), or (iii) certified by a treating specialist as being in advanced illness receiving palliative or end-of-life care.

Why chosen: matches the actual clinical/legal reality of terminal illness in Australia (as documented in Legal Research §1); avoids delegating eligibility to a single unrelated regulation; supports the Cairnmillar "distress beyond ordinary suffering" test with three converging evidentiary streams.

Pitfall 3.1 — Objects too broad (fails "benevolent")

If the Objects cover generalised "financial hardship" they fail Cairnmillar — the PBI beneficiary class must be characterised by distress beyond ordinary suffering. The 1990 case Marriage Guidance Council illustrates the failure mode.

Mitigation: Constitution cl. 4(a) restricts beneficiaries to persons with certified terminal illness (via three layered pathways) — a class definitionally satisfying Cairnmillar.
Pitfall 3.2 — Objects too narrow (mission strangulation)

An Objects clause tied only to SIS Reg 6.01A leaves out several groups (12-month insurance certifications; late-diagnosed palliative patients) whom LWD's mission plainly intends to help — leaving the Board either turning them away or breaching the Constitution to help them.

Mitigation: the layered class in cl. 4(a) closes each of the three known clinical/legal certification pathways.
Pitfall 3.3 — Relief categories drift beyond DGR-permissible use

Every dollar spent from the Gift Fund must be applied to LWD's DGR purpose (ITAA 1997 s.30-130). Vague Objects language allowing "such other purposes as the Board determines" is a common drafting error that has cost charities their DGR endorsement.

Mitigation: cl. 4(b) enumerates four and only four relief categories (case management; engaging licensed professionals; direct payments to creditors within caps; systemic advocacy). Every one is directly linked to the beneficiary class and none is open-ended.
Chosen path

Objects clause 4 defines the beneficiary class by three converging certification pathways (SIS Reg 6.01A, life-insurance terminal-illness clause, treating-specialist palliative certification) and enumerates exactly four relief categories. See Constitution cl. 4.

Constitution cl. 4 · Legal anchors: §III.A Charities Act s.5, s.11, s.12 · §III.E ATO PBI CIS ¶¶11–17 · §III.M Cairnmillar Institute
Decision 4

Who should be members of the company?

Should LWD have (A) open public membership, (B) a small restricted Founding-Members model, or (C) directors-only membership?

Rejected

A. Open public membership

Any donor, supporter or beneficiary can apply and become a member with voting rights on a $10 guarantee.

Rejected because: members can requisition meetings, remove directors, alter the Constitution and vote to wind up. Open membership hands operational control of a sensitive charity to a self-selecting supporter group that has no accountability to beneficiaries — a governance risk repeatedly flagged by ACNC in its Governance Standards guidance.

Chosen

B. Restricted Founding-Members

Membership is limited to persons admitted by the Board on the basis of a demonstrated alignment with the Objects. Membership fee remains $10 guarantee. Board may admit further members; membership is not open by application.

Why chosen: preserves member-driven oversight of the Board (removal power under s.203D remains intact), but keeps the member body small, aligned and accountable. This is the model used by most Australian PBI charities of similar size and mission (documented in the Public Benefit Memo).

Rejected

C. Directors-only members

The directors are the only members, so removal-of-director power collapses into the board itself.

Rejected because: it eliminates the s.203D "members can remove a director by resolution" safety valve required by ACNC Governance Standard 4 (suitable directors), creating a governance concentration risk that the ACNC has publicly criticised.

Pitfall 4.1 — Members with financial interests capture the Board

Open-membership charities have been captured by contractors, related parties or ideological sub-groups who then vote in aligned directors — voiding both Governance Standard 5 (director duties) and Standard 2 (accountability to members).

Mitigation: cl. 6 restricts admission of members to persons approved by the Board on written application demonstrating alignment with the Objects, with a resolution recorded in the Board minutes.
Pitfall 4.2 — Loss of s.203D removal power

Section 203D Corporations Act preserves members' right to remove a director by resolution. A director-only model quietly extinguishes it and is inconsistent with ACNC Governance Standard 4.

Mitigation: LWD has at least three members (the Founding Members) at all times, so the s.203D lever is real and exercisable.
Chosen path

Membership is restricted to Founding Members plus persons subsequently admitted by Board resolution. Membership carries a $10 guarantee. Members retain the s.203D removal power. See Constitution cll. 6–8.

Constitution cll. 6–8 · Legal anchors: §III.C2 Corporations Act s.117, s.203D · §III.B2 ACNC Governance Standards 2, 4
Decision 5

How should the Board be composed?

What is the minimum and target size of the Board, and what independence standard should apply?

Rejected

A. Small (min 2, target 3)

The statutory floor for a public company is 3 directors (s.201A(2) Corporations Act). Two-director models are for Pty Ltds and cannot be adopted here.

Rejected because: unlawful — a public CLG needs at least 3 directors.

Chosen

B. Min 3, target 5, majority independent

Constitutional floor of 3 directors (Corporations Act minimum for public companies), target of 5, with a majority of directors being independent of LWD's operational management and of Related Parties.

Why chosen: meets the s.201A(2) minimum; matches ACNC governance guidance for medium/large charities; supports Governance Standard 5 (directors' duties); provides a quorum-safe number for recusals on related-party matters (Decision 8).

Rejected

C. Large (min 7)

A larger board (7+) with formal sub-committee structure.

Rejected because: disproportionate for Year 1 operations; recruitment burden delays incorporation and ACNC lodgement; ACNC does not require larger boards for Year 1 registration.

Pitfall 5.1 — Falling below s.201A(2) statutory minimum

If a director resigns and the Board drops below 3, the company breaches s.201A(2) and the ACNC treats this as a Governance Standard 5 concern.

Mitigation: cl. 11 sets a Constitutional floor of 3 directors; cl. 12(f) triggers automatic remedial action within 30 days if the Board falls below the floor.
Pitfall 5.2 — No independent voice on related-party matters

With Laurence (Founder/CEO) and his spouse Lisa on the Board, plus CoSai (Carla) as service provider, the natural risk is that every related-party matter ends in Laurence's judgment. This defeats Chapter 2E Corporations Act and Governance Standard 5.

Mitigation: cl. 11(c) requires a majority of independent directors; cl. 14 requires that any related-party matter be decided by a majority of the independent directors, with related directors recused (see Decision 8).
Chosen path

Board floor of 3 directors, target of 5, majority independent, quorum of 2 with at least 1 independent director. See Constitution cll. 11–14.

Constitution cll. 11–14 · Legal anchors: §III.C3 Corporations Act s.201A, s.203D, s.204A · §III.B2 ACNC GS 5
Decision 6

What should the members' guarantee amount be?

How much should each member undertake to contribute on winding up? Common practice ranges from $1 to $100.

Rejected

A. $1 nominal

The absolute minimum. Common in some older CLGs.

Rejected because: perceived as trivial; some funders view a $1 guarantee as inconsistent with a genuine membership commitment.

Chosen

B. $10

The industry-standard nominal guarantee for a modern PBI CLG.

Why chosen: low enough to be irrelevant to any member's personal financial position; high enough to signal a real membership commitment; matches the majority of comparable Australian PBI CLGs.

Rejected

C. $100 or higher

A larger guarantee, occasionally used in professional-body CLGs.

Rejected because: a higher guarantee has no upside for a public benevolent institution and creates an unnecessary barrier to Founding Member commitment.

Pitfall 6.1 — Guarantee treated as ongoing subscription

Members occasionally believe the $10 guarantee is an annual fee. If wrongly framed in the Constitution as a "subscription", it can trigger fundraising or associations-law consequences.

Mitigation: cl. 9 expressly describes the $10 as a guarantee payable only on winding up while the person is a member (or within 12 months of ceasing) — not a subscription.
Chosen path

Members' guarantee is $10 per member, payable only on winding up while the person is a member or within 12 months of ceasing. See Constitution cl. 9.

Constitution cl. 9 · Legal anchors: §III.C1 Corporations Act s.117(2)(m)
Decision 7

What should the financial year end be?

Should LWD adopt the standard 30 June financial year, or a substituted year end (e.g. 31 December)?

Chosen

A. 30 June

The default financial year under s.323D(1) Corporations Act and s.205-25 ACNC Act.

Why chosen: aligns with ATO, ACNC, and all Australian statutory reporting cycles; no substituted-year application required; matches donor tax cycles (deductible gifts substantially concentrated pre-30 June).

Rejected

B. Substituted (e.g. 31 December)

A calendar-year alignment, sometimes adopted by international NGOs.

Rejected because: requires ACNC approval under s.60-85 ACNC Act; no operational benefit for LWD; would misalign with donor giving cycle.

Pitfall 7.1 — Late Annual Information Statement

ACNC Annual Information Statements are due 6 months after year end. A misaligned financial year risks missed lodgement deadlines, ACNC compliance action, and (after two years) loss of registration under s.35-10 ACNC Act.

Mitigation: cl. 26 fixes 30 June and cl. 27 requires the Secretary to calendar all ACNC/ATO/ASIC lodgement dates 60 days ahead.
Chosen path

Financial year ends 30 June. See Constitution cl. 26.

Constitution cl. 26 · Legal anchors: §III.C4 Corporations Act s.323D · §III.B1 ACNC Act s.205-25
Decision 8

How should related-party transactions and conflicts of interest be governed?

Given that Laurence (Founder), Lisa (spouse) and Carla (CoSai CFO Services) are all in the founding group, how should the Constitution manage related-party arrangements without either strangling operations or breaching Chapter 2E Corporations Act?

Rejected

A. Blanket prohibition

Constitution prohibits any related-party transactions at all.

Rejected because: inconsistent with reality — LWD will lawfully rely on CoSai for CFO services and on Laurence's employment as CEO. A blanket ban would either force wasteful re-sourcing at market cost or drive the entity to routine constitutional breach.

Chosen

B. Structured framework (arm's-length + recusal + disclosure)

Related-party arrangements permitted only if: (i) fully disclosed on the Register of Interests; (ii) approved by a majority of independent directors with related directors recused; (iii) proven arm's-length by competitive quote or independent benchmark (Year 2 onwards); (iv) reported to members in the Annual Report and to ACNC in the Annual Information Statement.

Why chosen: mirrors s.208 & s.211 Corporations Act (arm's-length exception), Governance Standard 5, AASB 124 disclosure. Permits operations while preserving audit trail.

Rejected

C. Chapter 2E-only reliance

Constitution simply says "comply with Chapter 2E" and leaves it there.

Rejected because: under-specifies procedure. ACNC and ATO PBI reviewers want to see the mechanism, not the statutory pointer. And Chapter 2E is member-approval-centric, which doesn't map cleanly onto a small-member CLG.

Pitfall 8.1 — Undisclosed material personal interest (s.191)

A director who fails to disclose a material personal interest breaches s.191 Corporations Act — a strict-liability offence with civil penalty consequences. In a related-party-rich founding group this is the highest-frequency risk.

Mitigation: cl. 14(a) requires a standing Register of Interests, updated on appointment and re-affirmed at every Board meeting; cl. 14(b) requires each director to declare interests at the start of every meeting; cl. 14(c) recuses the interested director from discussion and voting.
Pitfall 8.2 — Related-party benefits without member approval (s.208)

s.208 prohibits a "public company" (which a CLG is) from giving a financial benefit to a related party without member approval, unless an exception (s.210–s.216) applies. The most useful exception is s.211 (arm's-length terms).

Mitigation: cl. 15(a) requires all related-party arrangements to be on arm's-length terms as evidenced by (Year 1) sworn declaration + independent director sign-off, and (Year 2+) competitive quotes; cl. 15(b) requires all such arrangements to be minuted with the s.211 evidentiary basis expressly recorded.
Pitfall 8.3 — Founder-CEO remuneration perception

Even where lawful, a Founder-CEO drawing a salary from a young charity can trigger donor, media and regulator scrutiny. Governance Standard 5 places an affirmative duty on directors to avoid conflicts.

Mitigation: cl. 15(c) requires CEO remuneration to be benchmarked to Australian PBI CEO surveys (ACNC/ProBono publish these), set by independent directors only, and disclosed in the Annual Report (AASB 124 KMP disclosure).
Chosen path

Related-party framework: Register of Interests + meeting-opening disclosure + recusal + arm's-length evidence + KMP disclosure. See Constitution cll. 14–15.

Constitution cll. 14–15 · Legal anchors: §III.C5 Corporations Act s.191, s.195, s.208, s.211, s.228 · §III.B2 ACNC GS 5 · §III.L AASB 124
Decision 9

Should direct-relief caps be in the Constitution or in policy?

Where should the numerical caps on direct debt payments — per beneficiary, per relief pool, per year — live?

Rejected

A. Caps in the Constitution

Fix caps of e.g. $5,000/$15,000/25% inside the Constitution itself.

Rejected because: caps must be recalibrated as LWD scales, and every recalibration would require a special resolution + ACNC approval to alter the Constitution. The Constitution should state the principle and delegate the number.

Chosen

B. Principle in Constitution, numbers in Direct Relief Policy

Constitution cl. 16(b) requires the Board to adopt and maintain a written Direct Relief Policy with per-beneficiary and pool caps, published on the LWD website and disclosed to ACNC. The current numbers ($5k / $15k / 25%) live in the Policy.

Why chosen: preserves adaptability; keeps the Constitution stable; and still binds the Board to a published cap regime (which is itself referenced in the ACNC application).

Pitfall 9.1 — Uncapped direct relief overwhelms other activities

An uncapped direct-relief regime can, at scale, consume 100% of expenditure — collapsing the "institution" limb of the PBI test (ATO CIS ¶44–46).

Mitigation: cl. 16(b) requires the Direct Relief Policy to specify (i) an aggregate pool cap as a % of annual expenditure, (ii) per-beneficiary caps, (iii) reporting to the Board and to members via the Annual Report.
Pitfall 9.2 — Ad hoc relief without policy trail

Discretionary payments without a written policy expose directors to personal liability under s.180 (duty of care) and s.181 (duty in good faith).

Mitigation: cl. 16(c) makes it a Constitution-level breach for the Board to authorise any direct relief payment other than under the current published Direct Relief Policy.
Chosen path

Constitution mandates a written Direct Relief Policy with caps; the specific numbers live in the Policy and are approved annually by the Board. See Constitution cl. 16 and Direct Relief Policy.

Constitution cl. 16 · Legal anchors: §III.C5 Corporations Act s.180–s.184 · §III.E ATO PBI CIS ¶¶44–46 · §III.B2 ACNC GS 5
Decision 10

How should the DGR Gift Fund be structured?

Should the Gift Fund clause be a single line ("we maintain a gift fund") or a self-contained clause block that codifies every ITAA 1997 s.30-125 / s.30-130 requirement?

Rejected

A. Single-line reference

"The company shall maintain a Gift Fund as required by Division 30 ITAA 1997."

Rejected because: ATO Endorsement teams routinely reject one-line Gift Fund references as insufficient. The Gift Fund conditions must be visible on the face of the Constitution.

Chosen

B. Self-contained Gift Fund clause block

A single dedicated clause (cl. 20) codifying (i) the Fund's purpose, (ii) what may be deposited, (iii) permitted uses, (iv) the transfer-on-endorsement-loss rule (s.30-125(6)), (v) the winding-up destination for Gift Fund assets (cl. 34), (vi) separate accounting.

Why chosen: matches ATO's model DGR clauses; makes the Endorsement review essentially mechanical; leaves no room for interpretive drift.

Pitfall 10.1 — Gift Fund co-mingled with general funds

Co-mingling gift-deductible receipts with other receipts breaches ITAA 1997 s.30-130 and is a common ground for DGR revocation.

Mitigation: cl. 20(d) requires separate accounting for the Gift Fund at the general-ledger level; cl. 20(e) requires it to be reported separately in the audited financial statements.
Pitfall 10.2 — No transfer-on-revocation clause

s.30-125(6) requires the Constitution to say that on revocation of DGR endorsement, any remaining Gift Fund assets are transferred to another DGR of the same type.

Mitigation: cl. 20(f) and cl. 34(c) codify the transfer-on-revocation and transfer-on-winding-up requirements to another Item 4.1.1 DGR (or, on ATO direction, another DGR of the same type).
Chosen path

Dedicated Gift Fund clause block (cl. 20) codifying all s.30-125 / s.30-130 requirements, separate accounting, and transfer-on-revocation. See Constitution cl. 20.

Constitution cl. 20 · Legal anchors: §III.D ITAA 1997 s.30-125, s.30-130 · Cross-refs cl. 34 (winding-up)
Decision 11

How should we protect the paramount clauses from future erosion?

Should the Constitution be alterable by ordinary special resolution (75% members), or should the paramount clauses (purposes, NFP, gift fund, winding-up) have an additional lock?

Rejected

A. Standard special resolution only

s.136(2) Corporations Act says the Constitution may be modified or repealed by special resolution (75%).

Rejected because: in a small-member entity, 75% is easily reached and the paramount clauses (NFP, purposes, winding-up destination) would be vulnerable to a future member majority. This is precisely the risk the ATO and ACNC guard against when reviewing DGR/PBI constitutions.

Chosen

B. Layered alteration lock (75% + ACNC + ATO)

Ordinary clauses alterable by 75% special resolution. Paramount clauses (purposes, NFP, gift fund, winding-up, precedence, alteration itself) alterable only by 75% special resolution and written non-objection from ACNC and ATO where DGR endorsement is on foot.

Why chosen: preserves the members' formal amendment right while making it structurally impossible to erode charitable and DGR conditions without regulator visibility. Matches best-practice model constitutions published by ACNC.

Rejected

C. Absolute entrenchment

Paramount clauses declared unalterable.

Rejected because: under s.136(3) Corporations Act, the Constitution may impose further requirements but cannot make itself absolutely unalterable — such a clause is void.

Pitfall 11.1 — Silent inconsistency between clauses

Even the best Constitution can contain latent inconsistencies. Absent a precedence rule, a later general clause can be read as impliedly overriding an earlier paramount clause.

Mitigation: cl. 3(c) declares that in the event of inconsistency, the paramount clauses (2 purposes, 3 NFP, 20 Gift Fund, 34 winding-up, 33 alteration) prevail over any other clause; and any clause that would, if applied, breach a paramount clause is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
Pitfall 11.2 — Alteration used to migrate purpose after donations received

A very serious donor-trust risk: a future majority could vote to broaden the purposes clause after receipts, effectively repurposing donor money.

Mitigation: cl. 33 makes alteration of the purposes clause subject to (i) 75% special resolution, (ii) ACNC written non-objection, and (iii) if [DGR endorsement pending], ATO written non-objection.
Chosen path

Layered alteration lock: ordinary clauses alterable by 75% special resolution; paramount clauses require 75% special resolution + ACNC non-objection + ATO non-objection (where [DGR endorsement pending]). Precedence rule at cl. 3(c). See Constitution cl. 33.

Constitution cll. 3(c), 33 · Legal anchors: §III.C6 Corporations Act s.136 · §III.B1 ACNC Act s.40-5 · §III.D ITAA 1997 s.30-125
Decision 12

Where should surplus assets go on winding up?

On dissolution of LWD, where must the surplus assets be transferred?

Chosen

A. Same-type charity + same-type DGR (dual gate)

Surplus assets (i) of the general fund transfer to another registered charity with similar purposes and PBI status; (ii) of the Gift Fund transfer to another Item 4.1.1 DGR.

Why chosen: satisfies both the ACNC's Governance Standard 6 (or the "charitable purposes on winding up" rule at s.40-5 ACNC Act) and the ATO's DGR requirement at s.30-125(6). A single winding-up clause that satisfies both gates.

Rejected

B. Government or ACNC-directed

Surplus assets returned to the Commonwealth or transferred as ACNC directs.

Rejected because: unnecessary; misaligned with donor intent; not the ATO model clause and would attract Endorsement queries.

Pitfall 12.1 — Distribution to members on winding up

Any clause that permits members to receive surplus assets on winding up destroys NFP status and voids DGR / charity registration.

Mitigation: cl. 34(a) expressly prohibits distribution of any surplus (or Gift Fund) asset to any member or director, past or present.
Chosen path

Winding-up clause 34: no distribution to members; general fund to another registered charity with similar purposes; Gift Fund to another Item 4.1.1 DGR. See Constitution cl. 34.

Constitution cl. 34 · Legal anchors: §III.D ITAA 1997 s.30-125(6) · §III.B1 ACNC Act s.40-5 · §III.C6 Corporations Act s.516

Part IIILegislative Sourcebook — full detail

Every source below is presented in the same three-tier structure: (1) a verbatim quote of the operative provision; (2) a plain-English translation of what it actually requires or forbids; and (3) an "application to LWD" block showing precisely how it lands in the Constitution and the operating manual.

How to use this Part

Each source has an anchor id (e.g. #legis-charities-act-s5) so the decision blocks in Part II can hyperlink directly to the underlying law. Where a section is long, only the operative sub-sections are quoted verbatim; omitted sub-sections are noted in square brackets so the reader can see the shape of the whole.

§III.A — Charities Act 2013 (Cth)

Charities Act 2013 (Cth) s.5 Cth statute
"Meaning of charity"

Charity means an entity:

(a) that is a not-for-profit entity; and

(b) all of the purposes of which are:

(i) charitable purposes (see Part 3) that are for the public benefit (see Division 2 of Part 3); or

(ii) purposes that are incidental or ancillary to, and in furtherance or in aid of, purposes of the entity covered by subparagraph (i); and

(c) none of the purposes of which are disqualifying purposes (see Division 3 of Part 3); and

(d) that is not an individual, a political party or a government entity.

Charities Act 2013 (Cth) s.5
Plain English

To be a "charity" for Commonwealth purposes, an entity must be: (i) not-for-profit; (ii) established for one or more of the twelve statutory charitable purposes (relief of poverty, sickness, disability etc.) for public benefit; (iii) free of any "disqualifying purpose" (illegal, political-party-aligned, terrorism); and (iv) not itself an individual, a political party or a government body. All four limbs are conjunctive — fail any one and the entity is not a charity.

Application to LWD

LWD is (a) a CLG with a paramount NFP clause (cl. 3) — NFP satisfied. (b) LWD's Objects (cl. 4) advance the relief of sickness and financial distress of a defined class (terminally ill Australians with debt) — a charitable purpose under s.12(1)(b), (c), (l) — charitable purpose satisfied. (c) LWD has no political-party alignment and cl. 4(c) contains express anti-drift language — no disqualifying purpose. (d) LWD is a company, not an individual/party/government body — entity type satisfied. All four limbs met on the face of the Constitution.

Charities Act 2013 (Cth) s.6 Cth statute
"Not-for-profit"

An entity is a not-for-profit entity if:

(a) neither the entity, nor any of its members or controllers, distribute, or purport to be able to distribute, any of the entity's profits or assets amongst its members or controllers while the entity is operating or on the winding-up of the entity; and

(b) the members or controllers do not otherwise receive, or purport to be able to receive, benefits from the entity, other than benefits that are:

(i) provided to further the entity's purposes; or

(ii) genuine compensation for services provided to, or expenses incurred on behalf of, the entity.

Charities Act 2013 (Cth) s.6
Plain English

A "not-for-profit" is one whose members and controllers cannot receive profits or assets — either during operations or on winding up — except (i) benefits that further the entity's own purposes (e.g. beneficiaries of a charity who happen also to be members) or (ii) genuine compensation for actual services rendered or expenses incurred. Arm's-length salary, arm's-length reimbursement and receipt of the charity's services in one's capacity as beneficiary are permitted; distributions of surplus are not.

Application to LWD

Cl. 3(a) prohibits distribution of any income or asset to any member. Cl. 3(b) permits arm's-length remuneration for services rendered (i.e. lawful salary for Laurence as CEO) and reimbursement of properly incurred expenses. Cl. 34 forbids member distributions on winding up. Combined, cll. 3 and 34 satisfy s.6(a). Cl. 15 (arm's-length related-party framework) explicitly channels every payment to a member or related party through the s.6(b)(ii) "genuine compensation" gate.

Charities Act 2013 (Cth) ss.11–12 Cth statute
"Meaning of charitable purpose" (s.12) — with public-benefit gate (s.11)

s.11 Public benefit — A purpose is for the public benefit if:

(a) the achievement of the purpose would be of public benefit; and

(b) the purpose is directed to a benefit that is available to the members of:

(i) the general public; or (ii) a sufficient section of the general public.

s.12 Charitable purposes — Each of the following is a charitable purpose:

(a) the purpose of advancing health;

(b) the purpose of advancing education;

(c) the purpose of advancing social or public welfare;

(d) the purpose of advancing religion;

(e) the purpose of advancing culture;

(f) the purpose of promoting reconciliation, mutual respect and tolerance between groups of individuals that are in Australia;

(g) the purpose of promoting or protecting human rights;

(h) the purpose of advancing the security or safety of Australia or the Australian public;

(i) the purpose of preventing or relieving the suffering of animals;

(j) the purpose of advancing the natural environment;

(k) any other purpose beneficial to the general public that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, any of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (j);

(l) the purpose of promoting or opposing a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country, if …[the purpose is in aid of another charitable purpose].

Charities Act 2013 (Cth) ss.11–12
Plain English

To be "charitable" you need both (i) a purpose on the s.12 list (health, education, welfare, etc.) and (ii) that purpose being for the public benefit — meaning the community as a whole or a "sufficient section" of it (not just a private family, not just the members of a club). A class defined by objective, socially significant criteria (e.g. "terminally ill Australians in debt") is a sufficient section.

Application to LWD

LWD's purposes fall within s.12(a) (advancing health — palliative distress), s.12(c) (advancing social/public welfare — debt-driven distress relief) and s.12(l) (advocacy in aid of the primary purpose). The beneficiary class defined in cl. 4(a) (terminally ill Australians with debt) is objectively-defined, open (any Australian meeting the criteria may apply) and a "sufficient section" of the public. Public-benefit gate (s.11) satisfied.

§III.B — ACNC Act 2012 (Cth) + ACNC Governance Standards

ACNC Act 2012 (Cth) s.25-5 Cth statute
"Registration as a charity and as a subtype" — including PBI

(1) An entity may be registered under this Act as one or more of the following:

(a) the entity type mentioned in column 1 of an item of the following table (that is, as a charity);

(b) a subtype of that entity type mentioned in column 2 of the item.

[Column 1 = "Entity that is a charity". Column 2 = list of subtypes, including public benevolent institution.]

(2) The Commissioner may register an entity as a subtype of an entity type only if the entity satisfies the description of the subtype.

ACNC Act 2012 (Cth) s.25-5
Plain English

Charity registration comes in two layers. The base layer is "charity". The second layer is a "subtype" — the most important of which for tax purposes is "Public Benevolent Institution" (PBI). Only PBIs qualify for the DGR endorsement at ITAA 1997 Item 4.1.1. The Commissioner registers a subtype only where the entity actually matches the description of that subtype (see the ATO PBI CIS at §III.E).

Application to LWD

LWD applies for base registration as a charity and for the PBI subtype in the same ACNC Form. Constitution cl. 2(b) records this intention. The three-element PBI test is worked through in the Public Benefit Memo, and the beneficiary class (terminal illness) is chosen precisely because it demonstrably satisfies the Cairnmillar "distress beyond ordinary suffering" test (§III.M).

ACNC Regulation 2013 — Governance Standards 1–6 Cth regulation
"Governance Standards" — Part 3-1 of the ACNC Regulation 2013

GS 1 — Purposes and not-for-profit nature: A registered entity must be able to demonstrate its purposes and its character as a NFP entity, and provide information about its purposes to the public.

GS 2 — Accountability to members: A registered entity that has members must take reasonable steps to be accountable to its members, and to allow its members adequate opportunity to raise concerns about the entity's governance.

GS 3 — Compliance with Australian laws: A registered entity must not commit, or omit to do, an act that may be dealt with as an indictable offence under an Australian law, or by way of civil penalty of 60 penalty units or more.

GS 4 — Suitability of responsible persons: A registered entity must take reasonable steps to be satisfied that its responsible persons are not disqualified from managing a corporation under Part 2D.6 Corporations Act, or from being a responsible person of a registered entity by the ACNC Commissioner.

GS 5 — Duties of responsible persons: A registered entity must take reasonable steps to ensure that its responsible persons are subject to, and comply with, [duty of care and diligence; act in good faith; not misuse position; not misuse information; disclose material interests; ensure financial affairs are managed responsibly; not allow the entity to operate while insolvent].

GS 6 — Maintaining and enhancing public trust and confidence in Australian NFP sector (external conduct standards for entities operating overseas).

ACNC Regulation 2013, Part 3-1, ss.45.5–45.30
Plain English

The six ACNC Governance Standards are a floor, not a ceiling. A charity that fails any one of them faces ACNC intervention up to and including revocation of registration. In practical terms: (1) the Constitution must publicly demonstrate charitable purposes and NFP status; (2) members must have a voice; (3) the entity must comply with the ordinary criminal and civil law; (4) the board must be composed of people who are not disqualified persons; (5) directors must act like directors — with care, in good faith, without misuse of position or information, with disclosure of conflicts, and responsibly on solvency; (6) if operating overseas, higher external-conduct standards apply.

Application to LWD

GS 1 — cll. 2, 3, 4 (purposes + NFP + Objects on the face of the Constitution); Constitution published on LWD website. GS 2 — cll. 6–10 (restricted-Founding-Members with s.203D removal power intact); AGM (cl. 22) required annually. GS 3 — cl. 4(c) (anti-drift language) and Compliance Plan. GS 4 — cl. 12(b) (director eligibility screen incl. ASIC banned-and-disqualified check) + Consent to Act declarations. GS 5 — cl. 13 (duties clause echoing s.180–s.184 Corporations Act) + cll. 14–15 (conflicts + related-party) + cl. 29 (financial reporting). GS 6 — not currently applicable (LWD is domestic-only in Year 1; if that changes, cl. 4(d) reserves ability to add external conduct compliance).

ACNC Act 2012 (Cth) s.40-5 Cth statute
"Effect of registration"

Registration under this Act gives an entity access to Commonwealth tax and related concessions, obliges the entity to comply with the Governance Standards and the External Conduct Standards (where applicable), and to lodge Annual Information Statements and (for medium/large entities) audited or reviewed financial reports.

ACNC Act 2012 (Cth) s.40-5 (summary of operative content)
Plain English

Registration is a two-way exchange. LWD receives access to Commonwealth tax concessions (income-tax exemption, FBT rebate, GST concessions) and eligibility to apply for DGR. In return, it must comply with the Governance Standards, lodge Annual Information Statements, and — depending on size — reviewed or audited financial statements.

Application to LWD

Cl. 26 sets the 30 June financial year. Cl. 27 obliges the Secretary to calendar all ACNC and ATO lodgement dates. Cl. 29 requires financial statements prepared and audited (medium threshold likely triggered by Year 2 relief pool) in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards.

§III.C — Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.112, 117, 150 Cth statute
"Registering a company limited by guarantee"

s.112(1) — The following types of companies can be registered under this Act: (a) proprietary companies (limited by shares; unlimited with share capital); (b) public companies (limited by shares; limited by guarantee; unlimited with share capital; no liability).

s.117 — To register a company, a person must lodge an application with ASIC (Form 201) setting out, among other things: the type of company; its proposed name; the names, addresses and dates and places of birth of all persons who consent in writing to become members and, in the case of a company limited by guarantee, the proposed amount of the guarantee that each member agrees to in writing to provide on the winding up of the company; the names and addresses of all persons who consent in writing to become directors and the company secretary; the address of the registered office and the principal place of business.

s.150 — A company limited by guarantee that satisfies the specified conditions may omit "Limited" or "Ltd" from its name; otherwise the name must end with "Limited" or "Ltd".

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.112, 117, 150 (extracts)
Plain English

A CLG is a species of public company (not proprietary). It is registered by lodging ASIC Form 201, which must include the name, the members and the guarantee amount, the directors and secretary, and the registered office. The name must end in "Limited" or "Ltd" unless the entity qualifies for the s.150 exemption (which requires ACNC charitable-purpose registration and a governance-conditions test).

Application to LWD

Cl. 1(a) fixes LWD as a CLG. Form 201 is lodged with (i) proposed name "Life Without Debt Ltd", (ii) three founding members each on a $10 guarantee, (iii) at least three directors with signed Consents to Act, (iv) registered office. The s.150 "Ltd" omission is not sought at incorporation — it can be applied for post-ACNC registration if desired; on current advice we retain "Ltd" for clarity.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.201A, 203D, 204A Cth statute
"Directors — minimum number, removal, secretary"

s.201A(2) — A public company must have at least 3 directors (not counting alternate directors). At least 2 directors must ordinarily reside in Australia.

s.203D(1) — A public company may by resolution remove a director from office despite anything in: (a) the company's constitution; or (b) an agreement between the company and the director; or (c) an agreement between any or all members of the company and the director.

s.204A(2) — A public company must have at least 1 secretary. At least 1 secretary must ordinarily reside in Australia.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.201A, 203D, 204A
Plain English

A public company (which a CLG is) must have at least 3 directors, at least 2 of whom live in Australia; at least 1 company secretary who lives in Australia; and the members have an unwaivable statutory power to remove a director by resolution, no matter what the Constitution says.

Application to LWD

Cl. 11(a) sets a Constitutional floor of 3 directors (matching s.201A(2)). Cl. 12(f) requires remedial action within 30 days if the Board falls below the floor. Cl. 12(g) preserves s.203D expressly (in case a future amendment attempts to narrow it). Cl. 25 requires at least one Australian-resident company secretary.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.180–184 Cth statute
"Directors' duties"

s.180 Care and diligence — A director or other officer of a corporation must exercise their powers and discharge their duties with the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if they: (a) were a director or officer of a corporation in the corporation's circumstances; and (b) occupied the office held by, and had the same responsibilities within the corporation as, the director or officer.

s.181 Good faith — civil obligations — A director or officer must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the corporation and for a proper purpose.

s.182 Use of position — civil obligations — A director, secretary, officer or employee must not improperly use their position to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else or cause detriment to the corporation.

s.183 Use of information — A person who obtains information because they are, or have been, a director, officer or employee must not improperly use the information.

s.184 Good faith, use of position and use of information — criminal offences — Reckless or intentionally dishonest breaches of ss.181–183 are criminal offences.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.180–184
Plain English

Every LWD director carries five statutory duties: (i) act with care and diligence appropriate to a director in LWD's circumstances; (ii) act in good faith in the best interests of LWD and for a proper purpose; (iii) not misuse their position; (iv) not misuse information they obtain by reason of their position; and (v) any reckless or intentionally dishonest breach of (ii)–(iv) is a criminal offence, not merely a civil one.

Application to LWD

Cl. 13 restates these five duties on the face of the Constitution — not because the statute requires it (the duties apply regardless), but because ACNC Governance Standard 5 and the ATO PBI CIS both reward express restatement, and because it puts the duties in front of every director every time the Constitution is read. Cl. 13(f) mandates an annual director declaration of continuing compliance, retained on the Register of Interests.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.191, 195 Cth statute
"Material personal interest — disclosure and voting restriction"

s.191(1) — A director of a company who has a material personal interest in a matter that relates to the affairs of the company must give the other directors notice of the interest unless subsection (2) says otherwise. [Sub (2) contains limited housekeeping exceptions not relevant to LWD's material transactions.]

s.195(1) — A director of a public company who has a material personal interest in a matter that is being considered at a directors' meeting must not: (a) be present while the matter is being considered at the meeting; or (b) vote on the matter. [Subject to sub (2) — approval by other directors, ASIC declaration, or s.195(4) exceptions.]

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.191, 195
Plain English

A director with a material personal interest in a matter must (i) tell the other directors about it and (ii) leave the room and not vote when the matter is discussed at a Board meeting of a public company (unless the disinterested directors resolve otherwise, or ASIC declares otherwise, or the matter falls within a specific s.195(4) carve-out).

Application to LWD

Highly material for LWD because of the founder-related-party pattern. Cl. 14(a)–(c) codifies (a) Register of Interests, (b) meeting-opening disclosure, (c) mandatory recusal. Cl. 14(d) records specific standing recusals: Laurence recuses on any matter affecting his salary or employment terms; Lisa recuses on the same; Carla (if she becomes a director) recuses on any matter affecting CoSai CFO Services. Cl. 14(e) requires the recusal to be minuted in each case.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.208, 211, 228 Cth statute
"Related party financial benefits — Chapter 2E"

s.208(1) — For a public company, or an entity that the public company controls, to give a financial benefit to a related party of the public company: (a) the public company or entity must: (i) obtain the approval of the public company's members in the way set out in sections 217 to 227; and (ii) give the benefit within 15 months after the approval; or (b) the giving of the benefit must fall within an exception set out in sections 210 to 216.

s.211 Arm's length terms — Member approval is not needed to give a financial benefit on terms that: (a) would be reasonable in the circumstances if the public company or entity and the related party were dealing at arm's length; or (b) are less favourable to the related party than the terms referred to in paragraph (a).

s.228 — Related parties include directors of the public company, spouses of directors, parents and children of directors, and entities controlled by any of the foregoing.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.208, 211, 228
Plain English

A public company (and LWD is one) cannot give a "financial benefit" to a "related party" (a director, their spouse, their child, or an entity they control) without either (i) member approval, or (ii) fitting an exception — the most important being s.211 (arm's-length terms). The remedy for breach is civil penalty and possible personal liability of the directors involved.

Application to LWD

LWD's related-party population at incorporation: Laurence (director + CEO), Lisa (director + spouse of Laurence), Carla (potentially director + controller of CoSai). Every financial benefit to any of them (CEO salary, spousal engagement, CoSai fees) must fit s.211 — i.e. arm's-length terms, evidenced. Cl. 15(a) requires arm's-length terms as a Constitutional condition of any related-party arrangement; cl. 15(b) requires the arm's-length evidence to be minuted; cl. 15(c) sets Year-2 competitive-quote practice.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s.136 Cth statute
"Constitution — adoption, modification, entrenchment"

s.136(1) — A company adopts a constitution on registration if each person specified in the application for the company's registration as a person who consents to become a member agrees in writing to the terms of the constitution before the application is lodged; or after registration if the company passes a special resolution adopting the constitution or a court order is made.

s.136(2) — The company may modify or repeal its constitution, or a provision of its constitution, by special resolution.

s.136(3) — The constitution may provide that the special resolution does not have any effect unless a further requirement specified in the constitution relating to that modification or repeal has been complied with.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s.136
Plain English

The Constitution is adopted at registration (by each founding member agreeing to it in writing) and can be changed later only by a "special resolution" — 75% of votes cast by members entitled to vote. Critically, s.136(3) lets the Constitution impose additional requirements on top of the 75% floor — e.g. requiring ACNC or ATO non-objection before certain clauses can be altered. This is the statutory hook for the "layered alteration lock" chosen at Decision 11.

Application to LWD

Cl. 33(a) reflects the s.136(2) baseline (75% special resolution). Cl. 33(b) invokes s.136(3) to require ACNC written non-objection before any alteration of the paramount clauses (2, 3, 20, 34, 33 itself), and ATO written non-objection while DGR endorsement is on foot. Cl. 3(c) declares the precedence rule so no other clause can indirectly undo a paramount clause.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.286, 323D Cth statute
"Financial records; financial year"

s.286(1) — A company, registered scheme or disclosing entity must keep written financial records that: (a) correctly record and explain its transactions and financial position and performance; and (b) would enable true and fair financial statements to be prepared and audited.

s.323D(1) — Subject to subsection (2), the financial year of a company, registered scheme or disclosing entity is: (a) the period of 12 months beginning at the start of the day of its registration; or (b) if a different period is specified — that period.

s.323D(2) — Companies may synchronise the financial year with a different period by choice, subject to conditions.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.286, 323D
Plain English

Every company must keep true and fair financial records for at least 7 years and must have a financial year (default 12 months from registration; can be aligned differently on registration to fit the standard 30 June cycle).

Application to LWD

Cl. 26 fixes 30 June financial year (aligned at first registration so no s.323D substitution is later needed). Cl. 29 requires financial records to be maintained by the Treasurer/CFO on Australian Accounting Standards for at least 7 years. Cl. 30 requires audit or review as required by the ACNC size test.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s.516 Cth statute
"Contribution of members of a company limited by guarantee"

Subject to section 517, if the company is a company limited by guarantee, each member need not contribute more than the amount undertaken to be contributed by them in the company's constitution on the winding up of the company.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s.516
Plain English

In a CLG, each member's liability to contribute on winding up is capped at the guarantee amount stated in the Constitution. Nothing more can be extracted from the member's personal assets.

Application to LWD

Cl. 9(a) fixes the guarantee at $10 per member. Cl. 9(b) preserves the s.516 cap. Cl. 9(c) confirms guarantee falls due only if member is a member at winding up or ceased less than 12 months prior (s.520).

§III.D — Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) — Division 30 (DGR)

ITAA 1997 s.30-45 — Item 4.1.1 Cth statute
"Welfare and rights — public benevolent institution"

Section 30-45 sets out the table of general categories of DGRs in the "welfare and rights" area. Item 4.1.1 of that table is:

Recipient: a public benevolent institution.

Special conditions: (a) the entity must be registered under the ACNC Act as the subtype of entity mentioned in column 2 of item 14 of the table in subsection 25-5(5) of the ACNC Act (public benevolent institution); and (b) the entity must maintain a gift fund in accordance with s.30-130.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) s.30-45, table item 4.1.1
Plain English

To get DGR endorsement under Item 4.1.1, an entity must (i) be registered by ACNC specifically as a Public Benevolent Institution subtype, and (ii) maintain a Gift Fund satisfying s.30-130. Both conditions are gating — fail either and the DGR endorsement will not be given, or will be revoked.

Application to LWD

The whole design of this Constitution is oriented at satisfying Item 4.1.1. Cl. 2(b) records the PBI-subtype registration goal; cl. 20 codifies the Gift Fund in full; cl. 34 codifies the winding-up destination in DGR-compatible terms.

ITAA 1997 s.30-125 Cth statute
"Endorsement — Rules and conditions"

s.30-125(1) — The Commissioner must endorse an entity as a deductible gift recipient if the entity is entitled to be endorsed.

s.30-125(6) — For an entity to be entitled to be endorsed as a deductible gift recipient, the entity must have a rule or requirement in a document (whether constitutional or otherwise) that provides for the transfer, on the winding up of the entity or on the revocation of its endorsement, of any surplus gifts and deductible contributions (and money received in relation to such gifts and contributions) to another DGR (or, if directed by the Commissioner, another fund, authority or institution that is a DGR).

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) s.30-125
Plain English

To be endorsed as a DGR, the entity's Constitution (or an equivalent rule document) must contain an express clause saying: "if we wind up, or if our DGR endorsement is revoked, any leftover gift-fund money will be transferred to another DGR of the same type". This is a black-letter constitutional requirement — a DGR application without it will be rejected.

Application to LWD

Cl. 20(f) codifies transfer-on-revocation of DGR endorsement to another Item 4.1.1 DGR. Cl. 34(c) codifies transfer-on-winding-up of the Gift Fund to another Item 4.1.1 DGR (or, on ATO direction, another DGR of the same type). Together they discharge s.30-125(6) explicitly.

ITAA 1997 s.30-130 Cth statute
"Maintaining a gift fund"

s.30-130(1) — A gift fund is a fund that: (a) is maintained for the principal purpose of the fund, authority or institution; and (b) does not receive any other money or property; and (c) is used only for that principal purpose. The entity must transfer to the fund any money or property it receives because of a deductible gift or contribution, and any money received because of such a gift or contribution.

s.30-130(2) — The entity's constituent documents, or a document that meets the requirements of this Act, must require the entity to maintain a gift fund in accordance with subsection (1) and set out the winding-up/revocation transfer rule (see s.30-125(6)).

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) s.30-130
Plain English

A DGR-compliant Gift Fund is a ring-fenced fund with three rules: (i) only receives deductible gifts (or money from those gifts, e.g. interest); (ii) receives nothing else (no membership fees, no unrelated income); (iii) is spent only on the entity's principal DGR purpose. This must be codified in the Constitution.

Application to LWD

Cl. 20(a)-(e) codifies exactly these three rules and adds two operational safeguards: (d) separate general-ledger accounting; and (e) separate reporting in the audited financial statements. This makes the Gift Fund auditable end-to-end — an important reassurance for the ATO Endorsement team.

§III.E — ATO Commissioner's Interpretation Statement — Public Benevolent Institutions (29 September 2025)

ATO PBI CIS (29 Sep 2025) Cth regulator instrument
"Public Benevolent Institution — meaning and three-element test"

¶11-17 — A public benevolent institution has three cumulative elements: it must be public, it must be benevolent, and it must be an institution.

¶32 — The relief of "distress" for the purposes of "benevolent" means distress that is beyond the ordinary suffering of everyday life. Distress arising from poverty, sickness, destitution, helplessness, misfortune or the like will ordinarily satisfy this test. The Cairnmillar case is authority for this proposition.

¶44-46 — An entity is an "institution" if it has structure, permanence and undertakes substantive activities. A mere fund that only receives and disburses money without operating the underlying benevolent activity may not qualify as an institution.

¶100-108 — Where an entity provides benevolent relief indirectly (e.g. through funding another entity) it must demonstrate that (i) the recipient is itself a public benevolent institution, or (ii) the funding arrangement is so integrated with the funder's own substantive activity that the funder itself remains an "institution".

ATO Commissioner's Interpretation Statement — Public Benevolent Institutions, dated 29 September 2025, paragraphs 11–17, 32, 44–46, 100–108
Plain English

To be a PBI, LWD must be: (1) Public — beneficiaries are the general public or a "sufficient section" of it, not a private class. (2) Benevolent — the beneficiaries are in "distress beyond ordinary suffering". Poverty, serious sickness, destitution, helplessness or misfortune count; ordinary hardship or unhappiness does not. (3) Institution — LWD has structure, permanence and actually does substantive benevolent work — it isn't just a fund handing out cheques. A funder-only body has to show it is really integrated with the doing.

Application to LWD

Public: cl. 4(a) — any Australian meeting the terminal-illness criteria may apply, so the class is an open, sufficient section of the public. Benevolent: cl. 4(a) restricts eligibility to terminally ill Australians with debt distress — a class definitionally in distress beyond ordinary suffering (see Legal Research §8 evidence). Institution: cl. 4(b) enumerates four substantive activity categories (case management, professional negotiation engagement, direct payment within caps, systemic advocacy) — none of them "funder-only". This directly answers ¶44–46 and ¶100–108. This is the reason Decision 2 rejected Option B (funder-only).

§III.F — National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) + National Credit Code (Schedule 1)

NCCP Act 2009 (Cth) s.29 & s.6 Cth statute
"Prohibition on engaging in credit activities without an ACL"

s.29(1) — A person must not engage in a credit activity if the person does not hold a licence authorising the person to engage in the credit activity.

s.6 — A person engages in a credit activity if the person: (a) is a credit provider under a credit contract; or (b) exercises the rights or performs the obligations of a credit provider; or (c) provides a credit service (which includes providing credit assistance or acting as an intermediary); or (d) engages in a debt-management or credit-repair activity for a fee.

NCCP Act 2009 (Cth) ss.6, 29
Plain English

You cannot lend, arrange, or manage other people's consumer credit for a fee without an ACL. This includes acting as an intermediary between a debtor and their creditor to arrange a hardship variation or settlement, if a fee is charged (or if fees would ordinarily be charged for that service).

Application to LWD

Decision 2 chose the hybrid model (Option C) precisely to avoid this trap: LWD itself does not act as a credit intermediary. Rather, LWD engages licensed third-party financial counsellors and (where necessary) lawyers who conduct the negotiation on the beneficiary's behalf, funded by LWD but not billed to the beneficiary. Cl. 4(b)(ii) codifies this "engage licensed professionals" activity. Year 2 evaluation of an in-house ACL is contemplated separately in the Roadmap.

National Credit Code (NCCP Sch 1) ss.72–75, s.88, s.89A Cth statute
"Hardship notices and creditor response obligations"

s.72(1) — A debtor who is unable reasonably, because of illness, unemployment or other reasonable cause, to meet the debtor's obligations under a credit contract may give the credit provider notice … of the debtor's inability to meet the obligations (a hardship notice).

s.72(4) — The credit provider must, before the end of 21 days after the day the hardship notice is given, give the debtor a notice stating (a) whether the credit provider agrees to change the credit contract, and if so how; or (b) if not, the reasons.

s.73 — If the credit provider does not agree, the debtor may apply to a court or the AFCA scheme for a change to the credit contract.

s.88 — A credit provider must not begin enforcement proceedings against a debtor unless (i) the debtor is in default; (ii) the credit provider has given a default notice; (iii) 30 days have elapsed; and (iv) the debtor has not remedied the default.

s.89A — A credit provider is not entitled to begin enforcement proceedings while a hardship application is undetermined; and specific 21/28-day timelines apply to information requests and responses.

National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth), Schedule 1 (National Credit Code), ss.72–75, 88, 89A
Plain English

A debtor who cannot meet a consumer credit payment because of illness (including terminal illness) may give a hardship notice. The lender must respond within 21 days with either an agreed variation or reasons for refusal. The lender cannot start enforcement while a hardship application is undetermined. If the lender refuses, the debtor can go to AFCA or a court to force a variation.

Application to LWD

These are the rights LWD case managers rely on when they support a beneficiary. They inform: (a) Beneficiary Toolkit scripts (available at the beneficiary-facing site); (b) the beneficiary-service standards in the Direct Relief Policy; (c) the ACNC application's evidence of unmet need — beneficiaries have these rights already, but do not know they exist, cannot invoke them alone, and (see §III.M Cairnmillar) are demonstrably in distress beyond ordinary suffering.

§III.G — ASIC Regulatory Guides (RG 96, RG 205, RG 209, RG 271)

ASIC/ACCC RG 96 (Debt collection guideline) Cth regulator instrument
"Debt collection guideline for collectors and creditors"

RG 96 sets minimum standards for how creditors and collectors must interact with a debtor, including special protections where a debtor has "special circumstances" — expressly including serious illness. It prohibits undue harassment or coercion (echoing s.12DJ ASIC Act) and directs collectors to (i) contact only within reasonable hours, (ii) allow appropriate response time, (iii) engage with third-party representatives (e.g. financial counsellors) authorised by the debtor, (iv) suspend collection during a hardship application, and (v) proceed with special care where the debtor's circumstances include serious or terminal illness.

ASIC / ACCC Regulatory Guide 96 (2021)
Plain English

RG 96 is the "how to collect debts without becoming an ASIC or ACCC enforcement target" guide. Terminal illness is expressly one of the "special circumstances" that triggers heightened restraint. LWD case managers who invoke RG 96 language have very strong regulatory backing to demand that a creditor pause, listen, and engage.

Application to LWD

The Beneficiary Toolkit scripts cite RG 96 in the opening line of every creditor letter. Case managers are trained to quote RG 96 § references. Cl. 4(b)(iv) (systemic advocacy) authorises LWD to advocate publicly for stronger RG 96 enforcement.

ASIC RG 205 Cth regulator instrument
"Credit licensing: General conduct obligations"

RG 205 elaborates the s.47(1) NCCP Act general conduct obligations for ACL holders — including obligations to (a) ensure credit activities are engaged in efficiently, honestly and fairly; (b) have adequate arrangements and systems to ensure clients are not disadvantaged by conflicts of interest; (c) comply with credit legislation; (d) maintain competence; (e) have adequate resources; (f) have compliance arrangements; (g) ensure representatives are adequately trained and competent; (h) have dispute resolution systems (internal + AFCA); (i) maintain risk management systems.

ASIC Regulatory Guide 205
Plain English

If LWD ever holds an ACL (Year 2+), these nine general conduct obligations become live. They are the reason obtaining an ACL is a significant undertaking and why Decision 2 defers the ACL question to Year 2 evaluation once the pilot has established scale.

Application to LWD

The Compliance Plan already maps each of the nine RG 205 obligations to specific LWD controls, ready for Year 2 ACL application. The Constitution itself contemplates this pathway at cl. 4(d) (reserving power to expand activities subject to any required licensing).

ASIC RG 271 Cth regulator instrument
"Internal Dispute Resolution"

RG 271 sets out ASIC's requirements for the internal dispute resolution (IDR) systems of financial firms, including maximum response timeframes (30 calendar days for most complaints; 21 days for credit complaints where hardship is a factor). Firms must acknowledge complaints promptly, provide a written IDR response, and inform complainants of AFCA access.

ASIC Regulatory Guide 271
Plain English

Creditors have hard deadlines to respond to complaints. Beneficiaries whose creditors miss those deadlines can escalate to AFCA (free to the beneficiary). LWD case managers use RG 271 timelines to force creditor engagement.

Application to LWD

Beneficiary Toolkit contains a "day 22" and "day 31" escalation letter template referencing RG 271 timelines. If LWD later obtains an ACL, RG 271 also binds LWD's own IDR systems.

§III.H — Banking Code of Practice 2025

Australian Banking Association — Banking Code of Practice 2025 Industry code (contractually binding on ABA member banks)
"Vulnerability, deceased estates, financial difficulty"

¶52–54 (Vulnerability) — Banks will take extra care with customers experiencing vulnerability. Vulnerability may result from a range of factors including age, disability, mental health condition, physical health condition, family or domestic violence, financial abuse, elder abuse, addiction, bereavement, family breakdown, language barriers, remote location, low literacy, or serious illness. Banks will train frontline staff to recognise these signs and will not use collection tactics that exploit them.

¶132–145 (Deceased estates) — When notified of the death of a customer, a bank will (i) suspend interest and fees on personal accounts from the date of notification; (ii) not initiate collection action against the estate for at least 30 days; (iii) not seek to recover a deceased customer's unsecured debt from a surviving joint account holder unless that person was jointly liable on the original credit contract; (iv) not sell deceased estate debts to third-party debt buyers; (v) waive small residual debts where recovery is disproportionate.

¶167–190 (Financial difficulty) — Banks will make it easy for customers to ask for help, will consider hardship applications on their individual merits within stated timeframes (mirroring NCCP s.72), will engage with authorised third-party representatives (financial counsellors, LWD case managers), and will not sell a debt in default while a hardship application is undetermined.

Australian Banking Association, Banking Code of Practice 2025, ¶¶52–54, 132–145, 167–190
Plain English

Every ABA member bank (which covers essentially all major consumer lenders in Australia) contractually commits to a code that treats terminal illness and bereavement as vulnerability triggers, halts recovery against a deceased estate for at least 30 days, does not pursue unsecured deceased debts against surviving relatives, and stops the sale of debts while a hardship application is running. Non-compliance is enforceable via AFCA and the Banking Code Compliance Committee.

Application to LWD

The Banking Code is the single most useful practical lever LWD case managers have. The Beneficiary Toolkit letter templates cite the specific ¶ numbers for every situation (vulnerability escalation; deceased estate; hardship application; debt sale prohibition). LWD systemic advocacy (cl. 4(b)(iv)) is calibrated to strengthen this Code's enforcement in future revisions.

§III.I — SIS Reg 6.01A · ASIC Act s.12DJ · ACL s.50

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 — reg 6.01A Cth regulation
"Terminal medical condition"

A person has a terminal medical condition at a particular time if the following circumstances exist:

(a) two registered medical practitioners have certified, jointly or separately, that the person suffers from an illness, or has incurred an injury, that is likely to result in the death of the person within a period (the certification period) that ends not more than 24 months after the date of the certification;

(b) at least one of the registered medical practitioners is a specialist practising in an area related to the illness or injury suffered by the person;

(c) for each of the certificates, the certification period has not ended.

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg 6.01A
Plain English

The 24-month "terminal medical condition" test used by superannuation law: two doctors, one of them a specialist in the relevant field, jointly or separately certifying a prognosis of ≤24 months. This is the strictest of the three commonly-used terminal-illness definitions in Australia.

Application to LWD

Cl. 4(a)(i) admits any Australian meeting reg 6.01A as a beneficiary — but does not stop there. Cl. 4(a)(ii) also admits persons meeting a life-insurance terminal-illness clause (12 or 24 month), and cl. 4(a)(iii) admits persons certified by a treating specialist as being in advanced illness receiving palliative care. Rationale: to prevent people who are demonstrably terminally ill from being excluded solely because their doctors have not written a reg 6.01A certificate.

ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) s.12DJ Cth statute
"Undue harassment and coercion"

A person must not use physical force, or undue harassment or coercion, in connection with (a) the supply or possible supply of financial services to a consumer; or (b) the payment for financial services by a consumer.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s.12DJ
Plain English

Aggressive debt collection is illegal, not merely unethical, in the financial services context. This is the statutory backbone of RG 96. Enforcement precedent includes ASIC v Accounts Control Management Services (No 2) [2012] FCA 1290.

Application to LWD

Case-manager escalation scripts refer to s.12DJ where a creditor has crossed the line. Cl. 4(c) (anti-drift language) expressly prohibits LWD itself from any conduct that could be construed as harassment or coercion — even in advocacy or fundraising.

Australian Consumer Law (Sch 2 CCA 2010) s.50 Cth statute
"Harassment and coercion — consumer transactions"

A person must not use physical force, or undue harassment or coercion, in connection with: (a) the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer; or (b) the payment for goods or services by a consumer; or (c) the sale or grant, or the possible sale or grant, of an interest in land to a consumer; or (d) the payment for an interest in land by a consumer.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law), s.50
Plain English

The parallel provision for non-financial goods and services — utilities, telcos, medical bills. Together with ASIC Act s.12DJ, it covers essentially the entire universe of consumer debts a terminally ill beneficiary might have.

Application to LWD

Case managers rely on ACL s.50 when the creditor is a utility, a telco or a private medical clinic (i.e. not a financial-services provider). It is cited alongside s.12DJ in the Beneficiary Toolkit escalation letters.

§III.J — Deceased estate law · Bankruptcy Act Pt XI

Probate & Administration Act 1898 (NSW); Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Pt XI NSW statute + Cth statute
"Debts of a deceased person; administration of insolvent estate"

Probate & Administration Act 1898 (NSW) s.44 — The real and personal estate of every deceased person shall be assets in the hands of their legal personal representative for payment of the debts of the deceased and, subject to that, for distribution among the persons entitled.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Part XI — Where a deceased person's estate is insolvent (assets insufficient to meet debts), Part XI provides for the administration of the estate as a bankrupt estate. The estate is wound up in accordance with the Act's priority rules; debts unable to be met from the estate are simply extinguished. No debt survives against a beneficiary of the estate personally, or against a family member, unless that person was independently liable (e.g. as joint borrower or guarantor).

Probate & Administration Act 1898 (NSW), s.44; Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), Part XI
Plain English

When a person dies, their debts are paid out of their estate. If the estate is not enough, the shortfall is written off — there is no personal liability on the deceased's family. The four exceptions where a family member remains liable are: (i) joint borrower; (ii) express guarantor; (iii) joint proprietor of a mortgaged asset; (iv) fraud or fraudulent preference in the estate administration itself. See Legal Research §7.

Application to LWD

This underpins LWD's beneficiary counselling. Case managers are trained (per Legal Research §7) to distinguish which debts a beneficiary should prioritise while alive (secured, joint, guaranteed) from those that will simply die with them (unsecured personal). This informs cl. 16 (direct-relief triage) so LWD money is deployed where it will survive the death event with real benefit.

§III.K — HECS · Tax · Social Security

HESA 2003 s.137-5 · TAA 1953 s.255-5 (Schedule 1) · Social Security Act 1991 s.1237A Cth statutes
"Government debts — HELP, tax, social security — on death and hardship"

Higher Education Support Act 2003 s.137-5 — A HELP debt is extinguished when the debtor dies. It is not enforceable against the estate.

Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), Schedule 1, s.255-5 — Enables the Commissioner to release a taxpayer, in whole or in part, from a tax debt where the debtor is a natural person suffering serious hardship. The ATO's "release from tax debt" application is a formal channel.

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s.1237A — The Secretary may waive a social security debt in specified hardship circumstances. Debts to Services Australia are also written off on death (as a matter of Services Australia policy) where the estate is insolvent.

HESA 2003 (Cth) s.137-5; TAA 1953 (Cth) Sch 1 s.255-5; Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s.1237A
Plain English

HELP debt dies with you. Tax debts can be released or waived in serious hardship, on formal application. Centrelink debts can be waived and are written off on death against an insolvent estate. These are the "quiet wins" a good case manager can secure for a beneficiary that materially reduce distress in the last months of life.

Application to LWD

Beneficiary Toolkit contains templated applications for (i) ATO release (s.255-5); (ii) Centrelink waiver (s.1237A); and (iii) HELP-status confirmation. These are pursued before any LWD direct-relief funds are committed — the Direct Relief Policy requires all statutory relief channels to be exhausted or in-flight before direct-payment approval.

§III.L — AASB 124 · Related Party Disclosures

AASB 124 (Accounting Standard) Cth accounting standard (AASB), mandatory for medium/large charities
"Related Party Disclosures"

AASB 124 requires a reporting entity to disclose in its financial statements, at minimum: (a) relationships between a parent and its subsidiaries; (b) key management personnel (KMP) compensation, in total and by category (short-term employee benefits, post-employment benefits, other long-term benefits, termination benefits, share-based payments); (c) transactions and outstanding balances with related parties, showing the nature of the relationship, the amount of the transactions and outstanding balances, provisions for doubtful debts, and expense recognised.

Australian Accounting Standard AASB 124 — Related Party Disclosures
Plain English

Medium and large charities must publish (in the notes to the audited accounts) the total remuneration paid to their directors and other KMP, and every material transaction with any related party. This is where the CEO's salary and the CoSai fees will become publicly visible in the ACNC Register.

Application to LWD

Cl. 29(c) requires the annual audited financial statements to include the AASB 124 KMP note. Cl. 15(d) requires the CEO's salary-setting process (independent-directors only + benchmark) to be described in the KMP note, so the process — not just the number — is on the public record.

§III.M — Leading cases

Cairnmillar Institute v FCT (1990) 90 ATC 4752 (FCAFC) Federal Court of Australia (Full Court)
"Distress beyond ordinary suffering — the benevolent-relief test"

For an institution to be characterised as benevolent, the relief it provides must address distress that is of such a kind or degree as would arouse pity or compassion in the community. The relief of ordinary difficulties of life is not enough. Distress arising from poverty, sickness, destitution, helplessness, misfortune or the like will ordinarily satisfy the test. Cairnmillar's provision of psychological services to people in severe psychological distress was found to be sufficient.

Cairnmillar Institute v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 90 ATC 4752
Plain English

Cairnmillar is the foundational Australian case on the "benevolent" limb of PBI. It draws the line between ordinary hardship (not enough) and distress of a kind that would arouse community pity or compassion (enough). Terminal illness is a paradigm example of the second.

Application to LWD

The Public Benefit Memo relies expressly on Cairnmillar as authority that terminally ill Australians in debt distress meet the "benevolent" limb. Cl. 4(a) is drafted precisely to lock LWD's beneficiary class inside the Cairnmillar zone.

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Marriage Guidance Council of Australia (1990) 98 ALR 465 Federal Court of Australia
"Distress not beyond the ordinary — a benchmark negative"

The Marriage Guidance Council provided counselling to couples experiencing marital difficulties. Held: the difficulties addressed were the ordinary difficulties of married life; while the counselling was valuable, it was not "benevolent" in the sense required for PBI. Not every entity doing socially useful work is a PBI.

FCT v Marriage Guidance Council of Australia (1990) 98 ALR 465
Plain English

The negative benchmark. It shows how a well-run, valuable service organisation can nevertheless fail PBI because its beneficiary class does not meet the "distress beyond ordinary suffering" bar. Any charity that draws its Objects too broadly risks the same result.

Application to LWD

The reason Decision 3 rejected a broadly-drafted "financial hardship" beneficiary class in favour of the layered terminal-illness class. The Marriage Guidance failure mode is precisely the failure mode LWD's tight class definition is designed to avoid.

Global Citizen Ltd v ACNC Commissioner [2021] AATA 3313 Administrative Appeals Tribunal
"Funder-only entity denied PBI status"

The Tribunal upheld the ACNC's decision that Global Citizen was not a public benevolent institution, on the basis that its predominant activity was fundraising and advocacy rather than the direct provision of benevolent relief; the "institution" limb was not made out because the substantive benevolent activity was undertaken by grantee entities, not by Global Citizen itself.

Global Citizen Ltd and Commissioner of the ACNC [2021] AATA 3313
Plain English

The most important recent case on the "institution" limb. It confirms the ATO CIS position: a body that mainly writes cheques to others is not a PBI unless it can prove that its own substantive activity is benevolent relief.

Application to LWD

The direct reason Decision 2 rejected Option B (funder-only) and adopted Option C (hybrid). Cl. 4(b) enumerates four substantive activities that keep LWD firmly inside "institution" territory rather than "fund" territory.

ASIC v Accounts Control Management Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1290 Federal Court of Australia
"Unlicensed credit activity + undue harassment"

The Court imposed civil penalties on a debt collection business that had engaged in credit activities without holding an Australian credit licence, contrary to s.29 NCCP Act, and that had engaged in undue harassment and coercion contrary to s.12DJ ASIC Act. The decision confirms that "credit activity" is broadly defined and that engaging in it for a fee without a licence attracts serious penalties.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Accounts Control Management Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1290
Plain English

The touchstone case on the unlicensed-credit-activity trap and on undue-harassment liability. Both s.29 NCCP and s.12DJ ASIC Act are actively enforced.

Application to LWD

The precise regulatory precedent behind Decision 2's Option C. LWD's operating model is engineered so that no LWD activity constitutes "credit activity" for a fee — the fee-charged intermediation is done by properly licensed third parties engaged by LWD.

Equality Australia Ltd v ACNC Commissioner [2023] AATA 2401 Administrative Appeals Tribunal
"Advocacy as an ancillary purpose"

The Tribunal considered whether an entity whose purposes included substantial advocacy could nevertheless be registered as a charity (and as a PBI). Held: advocacy purposes that are in aid of another charitable purpose (Charities Act s.12(l)) are permissible; a charity does not lose its status because it engages in advocacy, provided that advocacy is genuinely ancillary to its primary charitable purpose.

Equality Australia Ltd and Commissioner of the ACNC [2023] AATA 2401
Plain English

LWD can lawfully engage in systemic advocacy (e.g. pushing for stronger RG 96 enforcement, strengthening the Banking Code, changing HELP treatment on terminal diagnosis) provided that advocacy remains in aid of the primary purpose of relieving terminally ill Australians' debt distress. Advocacy cannot become the primary purpose.

Application to LWD

Cl. 4(b)(iv) authorises "systemic advocacy in aid of" the primary purpose. Cl. 4(c)(ii) expressly prohibits advocacy that is not so aided or that becomes party-political — closing the s.5(c) "disqualifying purpose" risk.

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v FCT (1931) 45 CLR 224 High Court of Australia
"Public Benevolent Institution — foundational statement"

Starke J: "A 'public benevolent institution', in my judgment, means an institution organized for the relief of poverty, sickness, destitution or helplessness. And I use the word 'organized' as meaning a body or association of persons acting together to some common end."

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1931) 45 CLR 224 at 232 (Starke J)
Plain English

The 1931 High Court statement that has framed every Australian PBI case since. A PBI is an organised body relieving poverty, sickness, destitution or helplessness. The word "organized" prefigures the modern "institution" limb.

Application to LWD

LWD's beneficiary class is defined in terms of sickness (terminal illness) and helplessness (inability to negotiate creditors while dying), and LWD is an organised body (a CLG with directors, members, staff and structured activities). The Perpetual Trustee formulation is directly cited in the Public Benefit Memo.

Part IVTraceability Matrix

Each row below maps one Constitution clause to (a) the design decision from Part II that produced it, (b) the legal source in Part III that requires or enables it, and (c) the specific risk the clause is designed to avoid. A director who wants to interrogate any clause of the Constitution can start from this table and follow the chain in either direction.

Constitution clause Content (in one line) Decision (Part II) Legal source (Part III) Risk avoided
cl. 1Name & type — public CLG§1Corp Act s.112, s.117, s.150Wrong form (Pty Ltd; state IA; trust) → PBI disqualification
cl. 2Purposes — charitable + PBI§3Charities Act s.5, s.11, s.12; ACNC s.25-5Non-charitable / non-PBI purpose
cl. 3NFP + no distribution + precedence rule§1, §11Charities Act s.6Loss of NFP status; latent inconsistency erodes paramount clauses
cl. 4(a)Beneficiary class (3 pathways)§3SIS reg 6.01A; Cairnmillar; PBI CIS ¶32Class too broad → fails Cairnmillar; too narrow → mission strangulation
cl. 4(b)Four relief categories§2, §3PBI CIS ¶¶44–46, 100–108; Global Citizen"Funder-only" characterisation → PBI denial
cl. 4(c)Anti-drift prohibitions§2NCCP s.29; RG 96; ASIC v ACM (No 2)Unlicensed credit activity; reputational drag
cll. 6–8Membership — restricted Founding Members§4Corp Act s.203D; ACNC GS 2, 4Board capture; loss of s.203D removal power
cl. 9$10 guarantee — nominal, wind-up only§6Corp Act s.516; s.117(2)(m)Guarantee mistaken for subscription; unlimited liability
cll. 11–12Board — min 3, target 5, majority independent§5Corp Act s.201A, s.204A; ACNC GS 5Sub-statutory floor; no independent voice on related-party matters
cl. 13Directors' duties (restatement)§5, §8Corp Act ss.180–184; ACNC GS 5Directors unaware of statutory duties
cl. 14Conflicts — Register + disclosure + recusal§8Corp Act s.191, s.195Undisclosed material personal interest
cl. 15Related-party arm's-length framework§8Corp Act s.208, s.211, s.228; AASB 124Chapter 2E breach; CEO-remuneration scrutiny failure
cl. 16Direct-relief principle + mandated Policy§9Corp Act s.180; PBI CIS ¶¶44–46Ad-hoc relief; uncapped pool consumes activity budget
cl. 20Gift Fund block (5 rules + transfer-on-revocation)§10ITAA s.30-125; s.30-130Gift Fund co-mingling; missing transfer clause → DGR denied
cll. 22AGM + members' voice§4ACNC GS 2Members not accountable
cl. 25Secretary — Australian resident§5Corp Act s.204ANo AU secretary → breach
cl. 26Financial year — 30 June§7Corp Act s.323D; ACNC s.205-25Substituted year → ACNC approval hassle; missed deadlines
cl. 27Lodgement calendar§7ACNC Act s.40-5Late AIS → deregistration risk (s.35-10)
cl. 29Financial records + audit + AASB 124 KMP note§7, §8Corp Act s.286; AASB 124Records not true & fair; KMP transparency failure
cl. 33Alteration — 75% + ACNC + ATO non-objection§11Corp Act s.136(3); ITAA s.30-125Purpose migration after donations; paramount-clause erosion
cl. 34Winding-up — no member distribution; charity + DGR gates§12ITAA s.30-125(6); ACNC s.40-5; Corp Act s.516Assets to members → NFP + DGR + charity all destroyed
How this matrix should be used
  • Solicitor review: work through the table row-by-row. Every "why is this clause here?" question has an answer in three columns.
  • ACNC / ATO reviewer response: if the ACNC or ATO reviewer queries any clause, the Board (via the Secretary) has an immediate cited answer.
  • Future Board amendment consideration: any Board considering an amendment to a clause can see, at a glance, which decision must be re-opened and which laws must be re-checked. This makes the alteration lock at cl. 33 into an operational reality, not merely a formal barrier.
  • Directors' induction: new directors receive this paper (with the matrix) as their induction pack — an evidenced answer to "am I signing something I understand?"

§Close-out

A summary the Board can sign off in one page

This Constitution is engineered — not chosen from a template — to satisfy simultaneously the Corporations Act 2001, the ACNC Act 2012 and its six Governance Standards, the Charities Act 2013, the DGR conditions in Division 30 of the ITAA 1997, the ATO's PBI Commissioner's Interpretation Statement of 29 September 2025, and the operational reality of running a hybrid case-management-plus-direct-relief service for terminally ill Australians in debt distress.

Twelve major design decisions were made. Every one is documented in Part II with its full option-set, the pitfalls each option carries, and the mitigations the chosen wording adopts. Twenty-plus statutory, regulatory, code and case sources are quoted verbatim in Part III, translated into plain English, and applied to LWD's specific facts. Twenty-one Constitution clauses are traced through the matrix in Part IV to show which decision, which law, and which risk each clause exists to answer.

The Constitution is presented for solicitor review with the express expectation that the solicitor will not have to reconstruct the reasoning — the reasoning is here.

Reminders before filing
  • This paper is not legal advice. A charity-law-specialist solicitor must sign off on the final text of the Constitution before it is lodged with ASIC.
  • Each Founding Member must physically sign the final Constitution and the ASIC Form 201 member-consent block before lodgement (s.117 Corporations Act).
  • Each Founding Director must sign a Consent to Act (Form 201 director-consent block) and an initial Register-of-Interests disclosure before lodgement (ss.117, 201D Corporations Act).
  • Post-ASIC, the ACNC application must be lodged within 60 days along with the PBI subtype election (s.25-5 ACNC Act) and a copy of the adopted Constitution.
  • The DGR application (Item 4.1.1) is lodged with the ATO once ACNC registration + PBI subtype confirmation is issued.
Not legal advice

This paper synthesises published Australian legislation, regulator instruments, industry codes and case law as at the date of preparation. It is intended as a considered, evidenced basis for Board decision-making and for solicitor review. It is not legal advice to LWD or to any individual director, member or beneficiary, and no filing or operational step should be taken purely on the basis of this paper without file-specific advice from a suitably qualified Australian legal practitioner accepting professional responsibility for that step.

Constitutional Design Paper v1.0 · Life Without Debt Ltd (in formation) · Prepared for the Board · Not legal advice

Depiction Guardrail (v1.1 · Sprint 25 amendment)

Following Board direction (2026-08-06), the beneficiary-depiction rule has been re-framed as a two-tier guardrail rather than a blanket no-faces prohibition. The revision preserves the beneficiary safety hard-line whilst enabling storyline imagery for donor-, partner- and clinician-facing acquisition content (Rooms A, B, C, F).

  • Tier 1 — Beneficiary safety (hard-line, non-negotiable): No depiction, likeness, identifying detail or reconstructed testimony of any actual or plausible LWD beneficiary. Applies to every surface, forever.
  • Tier 2 — Acquisition storyline (required for awareness & consideration kits): Donor-, partner- and clinician-facing content must carry storyline imagery that communicates the LWD purpose. Faces of stock donors, partners and clinicians are permitted; emotional register is calibrated per room (A: dignified philanthropy · B: professional partnership · C: warm humanity · F: clinical trust).
  • Tier 3 — Craft standards: CC-licensed sources only (Unsplash / Pexels / Wikimedia Commons); credit + licence URL captured per asset; no misrepresentation; no bait-and-switch between image and copy.

Full text and per-room combination guide: Beneficiary Depiction Guardrails v1.1. This cross-reference is authoritative for Board minute purposes; the linked document is the operating source of truth.

📋 Copy for review
Paste into Word / Google Docs / email, mark up with Track Changes, send back.